Raven Public Research Report
Evidence Quality (Technical)
Why one hundred alerts are not one hundred pieces of evidence. This technical version exposes the evidence mechanics, replay boundary and test lineage.
What this report shows
Source independence
Duplicate alert roots can inflate confidence. The library treats duplicate roots as weaker than independent evidence families.
Lineage
Every promoted research statement must preserve source lineage, counterarguments and unknowns.
Confidence
Confidence is bounded by evidence independence, not by the number of dashboards or alerts.
Technical boundary
The technical version preserves source identifiers, test families and limitations without exposing private implementation paths.
Engineers should treat the numbers as internally reproducible counts from local artifacts, not as external validation.
Required customer validation
A customer pilot must provide incident history, topology context, ticket or dispatch evidence, decision timestamps and a mutually accepted ground-truth method.
Raven should prefer UNKNOWN or HUMAN_REVIEW_REQUIRED when those inputs are missing or contradictory.